Surveying the Landscape

by Andrew McAfee on September 14, 2009

McKinsey recently published the results of its third annual survey on “How Companies are Benefiting from Web 2.0.” It’s well worth a read. Instead of trying to summarize it or hit all its main points, I just want to concentrate on a couple elements I found particularly interesting.

Internal uses are more popular and powerful than external ones. Adoption rates were highest for internal uses than either customer or partner one. Across all industries and geographies, the percentage of adopters reporting measurable benefits from internal uses was again higher than for either of the other two.

There’s no single ‘killer app.’ 65% reported that they were using 2.0 technologies internally, but no single technology was in use at more than 35% of respondents.  Wikis, blogs, and social networking tools were the most popular 2.0 tools, with 35%, 34%, and 32% internal usage rates, respectively.

Respondents report concrete and large benefits. Among internal users, for example, 68% of respondents reported ‘increased speed of access to knowledge,’ and the median estimated improvement was 30%. For ‘increasing employee satisfaction’ the corresponding figures were 35% and 20%, and for ‘increasing number of successful innovations for new products or services’ they were 25% and 20%. For customer-related purposes, 43% reported ‘increasing customer satisfaction,’ with a median estimated improvement of 20%. It’s important to stress that these are subjective and unverified estimates given in at least some cases by 2.0 enthusiasts. It’s also fair to point out that they’re pretty big numbers.

Usage is increasing, and so is investment.  Internal, customer, and partner adoption rates all increased in both 2008 and 2009. And 79% of respondents said that their future investments in 2.0 tech-based efforts would be comparable to or greater than their recent ones, and only 6% said that they were planning to decrease.

I find a lot to be encouraged about in this survey, and few if any warning signs. Do you agree?  What do you see in the data, and what conclusions do you take away from McKinsey’s work here? Leave a comment, please, and let us know.

  • hpridgen

    Internal vs. External depends on industry/usage. If I recall correctly, IBM has had great success with an external facing confluence installation as a support resource for end user-tech interaction, as well as a new platform for development;

    Internally we've used our E2.0 engine to boost productivity and talent-management ROI. We looked at several engines, some met certain needs and some did not. It has been harder thusfar to push the 'social' aspect of these technologies vs. the obvious productivity aspect.

    Corporate culture is coming about, but it's a slow process – no matter how dazzling or user friendly the technology, there is a cultural adoption barrier to overcome.

  • http://elliotross.wordpress.com ElliotRoss

    I find it interesting – I have complained that in the “Dot 2″ world – there needs to be a difference in metrics and other measures – for internal vs external – and I would think the internal is harder to quantify – yet what most seem to be successfully doing

    I see two “faces” to to what we call this Dot 2 world

    Face Number One

    This is the face we commonly talk about. The externally focused, outside the firewall methods for building brand awareness, customer loyalty, keeping a finger on the pulse of our brand, and reaching out for marketing, service, customer input, and communications purposes.

    For face number one, we can usually look at our existing methods of marketing management, plus utilize our existing marketing metrics and tools for an ROI calculation.

    Face Number Two?

    For want of a better term, let me call it the inside the firewall digital water cooler.

    In the same way you replaced the four seat cafeteria tables with larger ones, spread out impromptu conference rooms, and opened up your facility spaces.

    You did this to remove the barriers to communication and collaboration, improve informal communication paths and methods, and work on the probability that ad-hoc idea exchanges occur.

    To me, face number two needs a different language. It needs different ROI calculations. Because at the end of the day, face number two is a numbers game.

    Can we lump both of these faces under one single (vague) umbrella?

  • 123456789sbb

    wedding dresses,wedding gowns,bride dresses,bridesmaids dresses,evening dresses,bridal gowns,flower girl dresses
    Wedding Gowns
    Formal Gowns
    Cocktail Gowns
    Find the wedding dress designer and wedding dress that's right for you! Browse dresses from
    Bridesmaid Gowns
    Evening Gowns
    View our selection of exquisite, handmade gowns and dresses for your wedding
    Wedding Dresses, Wedding Shoes and Wedding Accessories from wedding shop, the UK's finest collection of designer wedding dresses.
    Use the wedding dress and
    cheap wedding
    wedding dresses
    wedding shop

  • lihaoxj16

    tiffany jewelry
    Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories.
    tiffany co
    Tiffany Jewellery offering bangle Jewellery, bracelet jewelry, eardrop jewelry, necklace jewelry, ring jewelry, finger ring jewelry and earring jewelry
    tiffany
    tiffany and co
    links of london
    links london
    Tiffany Style Silver Jewelry: Rings, Earrings, Necklaces, Bracelets and more Tiffany Jewellery at low prices.

  • sudhirdesai

    There is a critical link between business outcomes and the kind of benefits people experience and describe in internal situations.

    In simple terms I would call that link “conversation management” – perhaps just like we had KM, we should now have CM (or “Social Interaction Management”.

    Until we develop a practice and a body of knowledge around Conversation Management, we will never be able to articulate benefits properly. End users might be able to say things like – we find knowledge easily, but the enterprise might still not see any benefits.

    Secondly, we need a Functional Architecture or Framework for the Enterprise ( a map), with reference to which we can ask people if things have changed. It is in this functional context that it becomes clear why no single technology matters. The function requires a systemic approach and a number of technologies – sometimes products which package those technologies could address these needs, but individual technologies will never be able to do so, unless the need is trivial.

  • sudhirdesai

    There is a critical link between business outcomes and the kind of benefits people experience and describe in internal situations.

    In simple terms I would call that link “conversation management” – perhaps just like we had KM, we should now have CM (or “Social Interaction Management”.

    Until we develop a practice and a body of knowledge around Conversation Management, we will never be able to articulate benefits properly. End users might be able to say things like – we find knowledge easily, but the enterprise might still not see any benefits.

    Secondly, we need a Functional Architecture or Framework for the Enterprise ( a map), with reference to which we can ask people if things have changed. It is in this functional context that it becomes clear why no single technology matters. The function requires a systemic approach and a number of technologies – sometimes products which package those technologies could address these needs, but individual technologies will never be able to do so, unless the need is trivial.

Previous post:

Next post: